Z5 audio at DVinfo.net

Resham Singh · May 20th, 2009, 02:04 PM

what does everyone think of the Z5 audio quality i.e. would I get better results by feeding my mics direct to a digital recorder like the zoom h4n or carry on recording the audio direct to camera which records to CD quality?

Steve Renouf · May 21st, 2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resham Singh

what does everyone think of the Z5 audio quality i.e. would I get better results by feeding my mics direct to a digital recorder like the zoom h4n or carry on recording the audio direct to camera which records to CD quality?

Well, the Z5 records MPEG-1/layer-2 @ 384kbps (Fs48kHz - 16bit), which I believe is over twice the bitrate of a .cda (approx. 170kbps) [Fs44.1kHz - 16bit] and is reckoned to give CD quality audio at a compression ratio of 3:1.

Comparison graph

Zach Love · May 24th, 2009, 05:57 PM

When making cameras, Sony, Panasonic, Canon & JVC are focused more in the picture than in the audio being the best it can be. You'll get much better audio if you use a mixer with good pre-amps recording into an uncompressed audio recorder than directly into a camera.

The difference is like the difference between listening to a sony on an iPod, or listening to that same song off a CD. They both sound pretty good, but if you listen closely you'll hear the quality difference.

The real question you have to ask is: Is your audio worth the extra time in work flow issues?

More money, more time, more people, more equipment.

If you do go for it, I would suggest getting an audio recorder that has "Line Out," so you can go from the recorder into the camera. That way you have a high quality audio recording of everything, but you also have a compressed audio track synced w/ the video.

But remember, it is all about workflow & what works best for YOU.

Resham Singh · May 26th, 2009, 06:18 AM

cheers Zach ,the main reason I am worried about audio quality is because it will be for live musicians on a harmonium and indian drums so my concern for good audio stems from this and i think the very minimum to improve audio will be a sound devices mixpre mixer feed to camera and better would be to add a recorder like the Marantz PMD 661 @ £456
MARANTZ PMD 661 - U.K. International Cyberstore

Luc De Wandel · May 26th, 2009, 07:38 AM

Hi Resham. I record live gigs of a pop group regularly, and I always use a separate Roland Edirol recorder to record the live sound, coming from an output of the PA. Superb 24-bit WAVE quality and the Edirol R-09 is not expensive at all. No cables running to the camera, and syncing is easy when you have a clap or handclap at the start of the recording. The Marantz is fine, too, of course, and about the same price.

Resham Singh · May 26th, 2009, 10:45 AM

Hi Luc, without having both recorders and doing a comparison myself it is hard to decide which one to go for so I decided that Marantz are a top end audio company and also the price from the link i have posted is over £100 cheaper than most web shops in the UK so its good value and if the addage is true that 'you get what you pay for' then its a good choice over the edirol but the final deciding point was the XLR inputs/outputs.....but boy is the Edirol wireless remote such a 'fantastic' feature.

May 20th, 2009, 02:04 PM	#1
Resham Singh Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 27	Z5 audio what does everyone think of the Z5 audio quality i.e. would I get better results by feeding my mics direct to a digital recorder like the zoom h4n or carry on recording the audio direct to camera which records to CD quality?

May 24th, 2009, 05:57 PM	#3
Zach Love Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 944	When making cameras, Sony, Panasonic, Canon & JVC are focused more in the picture than in the audio being the best it can be. You'll get much better audio if you use a mixer with good pre-amps recording into an uncompressed audio recorder than directly into a camera. The difference is like the difference between listening to a sony on an iPod, or listening to that same song off a CD. They both sound pretty good, but if you listen closely you'll hear the quality difference. The real question you have to ask is: Is your audio worth the extra time in work flow issues? More money, more time, more people, more equipment. If you do go for it, I would suggest getting an audio recorder that has "Line Out," so you can go from the recorder into the camera. That way you have a high quality audio recording of everything, but you also have a compressed audio track synced w/ the video. But remember, it is all about workflow & what works best for YOU. __________________ Nothing says you're a serious video maker like S-VHS

May 26th, 2009, 06:18 AM	#4
Resham Singh Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 27	cheers Zach ,the main reason I am worried about audio quality is because it will be for live musicians on a harmonium and indian drums so my concern for good audio stems from this and i think the very minimum to improve audio will be a sound devices mixpre mixer feed to camera and better would be to add a recorder like the Marantz PMD 661 @ £456 MARANTZ PMD 661 - U.K. International Cyberstore

May 26th, 2009, 07:38 AM	#5
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	Hi Resham. I record live gigs of a pop group regularly, and I always use a separate Roland Edirol recorder to record the live sound, coming from an output of the PA. Superb 24-bit WAVE quality and the Edirol R-09 is not expensive at all. No cables running to the camera, and syncing is easy when you have a clap or handclap at the start of the recording. The Marantz is fine, too, of course, and about the same price.

May 26th, 2009, 10:45 AM	#6
Resham Singh Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 27	Hi Luc, without having both recorders and doing a comparison myself it is hard to decide which one to go for so I decided that Marantz are a top end audio company and also the price from the link i have posted is over £100 cheaper than most web shops in the UK so its good value and if the addage is true that 'you get what you pay for' then its a good choice over the edirol but the final deciding point was the XLR inputs/outputs.....but boy is the Edirol wireless remote such a 'fantastic' feature.